About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
that we can make a deal that keeps them from having a nuclear power program. a nuclear energy program. but i wouldn't give up on a deal that keeps them from having a nuclear weapon. that keeps them a certain distance away from having a nuclear weapon. say having some 5% enriched uranium which would still require a substantial and effort taking significant time for them to get a nuclear weapon. now under those circumstances, there have to be enough inspection continued inspection, to provide assurance that that's all that they had. i don't know whether we can reach such an agreement. i don't know what we would have to give. i don't know what else they might have to give in order to reach it. but i think that's worth a real effort to try to achieve. failing that it is possible by an attack, an air attack, to set their program back by a couple of years. on the other hand, that would make relations even more poisonous if that's possible than they are now. and it would certainly rally the iranian population in favor of a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. so although i don't rule
issue from the panama canal treaties to the energy legislation where byrd worked tirelessly on it to get it done without a filibuster. he had the sense that the senate leader should have a special relationship with the president and that is the way the system was supposed to work. of course, the most important in for the senate leader is to make the senate work. byrd knew the senate rules better than any person that ever lived. he lived in dealing with the notion of the fear of a paralyzed senate. he wanted to think that the rules worked, but he knew that in fact jim allen of alabama had cracked the code. he had figured out how to have this filibuster so the senate could be tied up in paralyzed. robert byrd like to think you have to be an expert to do this, but it turned out you do not need to be an expert at all. a couple of senators did not know the rules and they tied the senate up. byrd struggled with the notion of how to keep the unique character of the senate without having a paralyzed? in that regard, he championed rules change. he got some done in 1979. he knew that the senate ru
all of the energy that ought to go into planning cyber war to a bunch of legal abstract debates. and the generals are sitting in the sideline saying, well, tell me what i can do. this is exactly the wrong way to treat government lawyers or maybe lawyers generally. much more effective if you say, we sat down and tell what it would take to win a cy reward. after we worked it through, the only way we can win is if we do this. is that legal? then you're going to get useful legal advice. probably they will find a way to say it is because most lawyers do not want to cause us to lose the next war. if you wait until they tell you what you can do, you will never know what you can do and you will never know how to win the cyber war. this i fear is where we are today. >> what you take of this view? >> i'm not actually sure i follow that restricting. i would like to think you for putting this together and particularly this book. so many of the issues that we have in lot today are very complex, and we have to have a way to access the broader our audience. just by the fact that this is that t
consequence. she's apparently to be head of a energy company that wants favors from epa or princeton. it's more important. we got legal proceedings to stop this massive economic dislocation. hopefully these candid discussions in the name of a false identity will shed light on that case. >> kelly: chris, we thank you for joining us and discussing this case that you're now pursuing. >> thank you. >> eric: coming up, the two things you'll need to know for new year's. great easy cocktails and a hangover cure you can find in the fridge. >> kelly: let's check in with gregg jarrett for what's coming up at the top of the hour. >> it's not my fridge. president obama set to meet today with house and senate leadership to make one more attempt to avoid going over the cliff. one prominent senator says hey, this meeting feels more like optics than anything real. are we skeptical? we'll have a fair and balanced debate. are dozens of law schools guilty of legal ethics violations? not mine. legal panel is here to weigh in on that in "america's newsroom" [ malennouncer ] it's tt time of year again. time f
was an engineer with a passion to try a lot of new stuff and i have a lot of energy. i hired people because i could not do myself what i wanted to do, and so i had employees. and i respected the work that they did because i gave them good salaries and the very best dental and health insurance, better than lockheed. and i never thought that i was there to grow a business or to make a profit. in fact, the number one thing -- and i always said that even to those who held stock in my company -- the number one thing, the biggest priority for my employees was to have fun. i enjoyed the accomplishment of breakthroughs and the fun of a first applied. and everyone who worked for me deserved to have that enjoyment. the second priority was the families of the employees have fun. that is why we provided good salaries and good health care and so on. the third priority, no cutting to make a profit. it is tough to say that to a stockholder or a board member. but every company i have ever seen go bankrupt, they started having fun -- they stop having fun before that. when people have fun, they will work like.
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)